ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research
Clinical and Autofluorescence Findings in Eyes with Pinguecula and Pterygium.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conjunctival Ultraviolet Autofluorescence: A Systematic Review of Factors Affecting Observed Ocular Damage.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the autofluorescence size and properties of pterygium and pinguecula by anterior segment autofluorescence (AS-AF) imaging and demonstrate the difference of autofluorescence size presented in AS-AF imaging compared to the extend size of the conjunctival lesion measured by anterior segment slit-lamp photography (AS-SLE). Methods: Twenty-five patients with primary pterygium and twenty-five with pinguecula were included in the study. In addition, 25 normal subjects were also enrolled as the control group. The AS-AF characteristics of pterygium and pinguecula lesions were analyzed. The size of lesions displayed in the AS-SLE photography versus the AS-AF images were also compared. AS-AF images were obtained using a Heidelberg retina angiograph which focused on the anterior segment. AS-SLE photography was acquired using a digital imaging system (BX900 HAAG-STREIT). Results: There were 44 (58.7%) male and 31 (41.3%) female patients; 19 (76%) and 20 (80%) patients had bilateral pterygium and pinguecula, respectively. All pinguecula lesions reflected hyperautofluorescence pattern in the AS-AF imaging. In 24 (96%) patients, the hyperautofluoresecence pattern was larger than the size of the clinical lesions displayed with the AS-SLE photography. Twenty-one (84%) patients with pterygium reflected a hyperautofluorescence pattern in AS-AF images; in one (4%) patient, the hyperautofluorescence pattern was larger than the clinical lesion size and four (16%) patients had no autofluorescence patterns in the AS-AF images. In the control group, in 14 (56%) subjects, a hypoautofluorescent pattern was revealed in the conjunctiva in AS-AF images. However, in 11 (44%) patients, hyperautofluorescence patterns were detected. Conclusion: AS-AF is a useful modality to monitor vascularization in conjunctival lesions. Pingueculae and pterygium show hyperautofluorescence in AS-AF imaging. The real size of the pinguecula lesions may be estimated with AS-AF characteristics, mostly presenting larger than the area size in AS-SLE photography. The autofluorescence size of the pterygium is smaller than the extent of visible pterygium in slit-lamp photography.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.